'Temperament', by Stuart Isacoff

[robert newman]

I met Rod and his lovely bride only a few weeks ago. She has twice been so patient with us Rod - talking on and on as we did about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart original instruments, etc. etc. Even Handel. (Love the CD's of Beethoven - hope you can eventually get to record player for that vinyl recording of the Grieg and Schumann by Dinu Lipatti - you will not regret it).

Wish you and your good wife all happiness.

Robert

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I met Rod and his lovely bride only a few weeks ago. She has twice been so patient with us Rod - talking on and on as we did about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart original instruments, etc. etc. Even Handel. (Love the CD's of Beethoven - hope you can eventually get to record player for that vinyl recording of the Grieg and Schumann by Dinu Lipatti - you will not regret it).

Wish you and your good wife all happiness.

Robert

Thanks Rob, indeed Mrs C had the patience of a true saint on those two occasions, I look forward to hearing your next update, preferably not in Ilford though!

I'm glad you like the CDs, but that was a fairly safe bet. You're qualified to speak your mind about fortepianos now. My mother has a record player so the next time I head North I'll take the disk.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Euan Mackinnon]

Sorry I missed this post earlier, but now you mention it, temperament and pitch too, which has steadily risen over time.

Rod

Thanks for the reply.

On Pitch: I was aware that there have been changes over time. For example, have you seen the changes at: http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory27.htm which show A varying from 421.6 (Vienna, 1780) to 427.6 (Paris, 1823), i.e. very roughly when Beethoven was around.

Another site that’s worth a glance is: http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html


On Temperament: Here I am less clear. In your original comment, you say:

But back to temperament in particular, remember it would have been different in Beethoven's Vienna to what we have now

Presumably, by inference, you are saying that Beethoven would not (necessarily) have been faced with instruments tuned according to Equal Temperament. If that is so, Rod, could you develop the point a little, e.g. what Temperament(s) would Beethoven have faced? Which then (among other things) leads on to the fascinating topic of Key selection and the ‘moods’ people claim are associated with different keys.

Euan


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-25-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Yes, up to point 3c (inclusive) of your letter I believe you understand it very well.

Good, we appear to be making progress.

I will post on the rest of your letter separately.

I await that with interest.

Euan

[Rod]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:

But back to temperament in particular, remember it would have been different in Beethoven's Vienna to what we have now

Presumably, by inference, you are saying that Beethoven would not (necessarily) have been faced with instruments tuned according to Equal Temperament. If that is so, Rod, could you develop the point a little, e.g. what Temperament(s) would Beethoven have faced? Which then (among other things) leads on to the fascinating topic of Key selection and the ‘moods’ people claim are associated with different keys.

Euan


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-25-2006).]

I'm not really sure when equal temperament was perfected, though to be honest I do not particularly care because I do not particularly like it. For me the equal temperament makes the instrument sound monotonous, it is a compromise formula. It is a value judgement so I can add little more. Concerning the temperament of Beethoven's pianos, my research into the matter indicates the equal temperament as we know it did not exist at that time. I have a recording of the Diabelli Variations in an 'authentic' temperament and in some places the effect is somewhat different to what we are used to, sometimes even a little disorientating, though the piano is modern so the authentic effect is not as much as it could be. I am certain the nuances of these 'exotic' temperaments are lost on the bulbous homogenised tone of the modern piano. I have such recordings on fortepiano and organ where the tone is far more engaging than is customary today, to my ears. Also I have recordings of the fortepiano where for sure equal temperament is used, and the same monotonous dendancy creeps in, though the effect is much less than on the modern piano.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-26-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

I've been specially busy the last 7-10 days and it may well be next week before I can justify my view (or try to). But I shall.

Regards

[Euan Mackinnon]

Originally posted by Rod:
I'm not really sure when equal temperament was perfected, though to be honest I do not particularly care because I do not particularly like it. For me the equal temperament makes the instrument sound monotonous, it is a compromise formula. It is a value judgement so I can add little more. Concerning the temperament of Beethoven's pianos, my research into the matter indicates the equal temperament as we know it did not exist at that time. I have a recording of the Diabelli Variations in an 'authentic' temperament and in some places the effect is somewhat different to what we are used to, sometimes even a little disorientating, though the piano is modern so the authentic effect is not as much as it could be. I am certain the nuances of these 'exotic' temperaments are lost on the bulbous homogenised tone of the modern piano. I have such recordings on fortepiano and organ where the tone is far more engaging is customary today, to my ears. Also I have recordings of the fortepiano where for sure equal temperament is used, and the same monotonous dendancy creeps in, though the effect is much less than on the modern piano.

Rod

Thank you for your reply.

Euan

[Rod]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
Rod

Thank you for your reply.

Euan

For the record, I now recall the 1850s Streicher I mention above, to be found at the museum by the 'Eroica House', was one of a few examples S made at that time with an English action and not the Viennese. And yet the piano sounds closer to that of Beethoven's Graf than the modern Steinway (you will hear the Graf again soon at the mp3 page with op126). Which goes to show even with much the same action as todays, the taste for the sound of the piano was quite different then, and must have been effected significantly via the nature of the stringing and the hammers as well as the tuning (the nature of hammer in particular is a subject in itself).

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-26-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

You wrote:

I've been specially busy the last 7-10 days and it may well be next week before I can justify my view (or try to). But I shall. (25th May)

I quote this because I see Chris has closed the thread What would it take to surpass The Great Beethoven? with my simple question to you (sent four times) still unanswered.

Now I am even more interested in your reply to the remaining ‘question’ I asked you in this thread so I sincerely hope I get your considered reply before this thread, too, is closed.

To assist you (and any others who may be interested) I repeat below and from earlier postings the ‘question’ together with what triggered it.

You claimed (my emphases):

To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science.

I responded:

Clearly both these words mean that if A pioneers or anticipates B, then there is some form of causal or predictive relationship between A and B.

This led to my request:

Perhaps […] Robert you could provide some examples where something in music had a predictive or causal relationship with some subsequent thing in science. And of course, given the tenor and thrust of your overall ‘temperament argument’, it seems to me reasonable to expect the examples will be substantial ones.

Can I expect a response during this coming week? I hope so; as I say, your original claim is such a huge one that I am fascinated to learn more before the thread is closed.

Euan

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

I will certainly answer you. Your question is well worthy of more than just a casual answer. I confirm that it's my view certain musical works do anticipate events as they may also be a contemporary reflection of those events (or environments) themselves. If (as I think is well established) birds and animals can somehow sense a coming storm, or can crowd together for shelter in fields before, say, an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, or if comets are really heavenly portents of imminent events on earth, or if certain works by poets and artists or by oracles in general have ever had relevance in man's affairs then, I say, a relationship of some sort does exist between these events and thsese sorts of artistic/prophetic utterances. But the extent to which these things are true and the relationship between such utterances and events seems to be one on which we cannot entirely rely on scientific arguments or methods - i.e. we cannot by noting such things ever know enough by which we can 'scientifically' predict these events themselves. And so (it seems to me) science and its methods are limited by the very fact that what we know in a scientific sense is limited to that which we can surely predict.

It must be (I submit) that there are things able to be predicted somehow which do not predict in a 'scientific' way and which are not within reach of scientific analysis.

But I will post on this next week or as soon as I can put such an argument together more coherently.

Robert


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-28-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Good to hear that you will make a definitive response in the near future.

Given your last posting, I would like to make one or two observations that I hope will allow us to progress a little more rapidly. To assist (me make these comments) I have broken up your response and numbered it.

1. I confirm that it's my view certain musical works do anticipate events …

2. … as they may also be a contemporary reflection of those events (or environments) themselves. If (as I think is well established) birds and animals can somehow sense a coming storm, or can crowd together for shelter in fields before, say, an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, or if comets are really heavenly portents of imminent events on earth, or if certain works by poets and artists or by oracles in general have ever had relevance in man's affairs then, I say, a relationship of some sort does exist between these events and thsese sorts of artistic/prophetic utterances.

3. But the extent to which these things are true and the relationship between such utterances and events seems to be one on which we cannot entirely rely on scientific arguments or methods - i.e. we cannot by noting such things ever know enough by which we can 'scientifically' predict these events themselves. And so (it seems to me) science and its methods are limited by the very fact that what we know in a scientific sense is limited to that which we can surely predict.

4. It must be (I submit) that there are things able to be predicted somehow which do not predict in a 'scientific' way and which are not within reach of scientific analysis.


Can we please limit our discussion – at least at this stage – to point 1 and, even there, to predictions of scientific ‘events’/’discoveries’ etc? If I may remind you, my request arising out of what you initially wrote is and remains:

Perhaps […] Robert you could provide some examples where something in music had a predictive or causal relationship with some subsequent thing in science. And of course, given the tenor and thrust of your overall ‘temperament argument’, it seems to me reasonable to expect the examples will be substantial ones.

Thus the sequence is music -> prediction -> science.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 are (I suggest) irrelevant at this stage of the discussion.

I hope that helps (and simplifies) your response.

Euan

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Well, here's the best I can offer at this time. You wish me to justify an earlier statement of mine where I said -

'I confirm that it's my view certain musical works do anticipate events'.

You also say you want to 'limit this discussion' to my above statement. And you say, 'Perhaps you could provide some examples where something in music had a predictive or causal relationship with some subsequent thing in science. And you say, 'Of course, given the tenor and thrust of your overall ‘temperament argument’, it seems to me reasonable to expect the examples will be substantial ones'.

And finally you define the parameters of such a discussion by saying -

'Thus the sequence is music -> prediction -> science'.

Well Euan, I think I understand why you wish to keep the lid on such a discussion. You believe that anything of real value to you must filter its way through the sequence to become a matter of science - something verifiable and able to be reproduced if such a thing was requested. I am not at all sure that your 'sequence' is as logical as you assume. Not when we are talking of music, its creation, it's history and its future. But I will do the best I can all the same.

See what you think of this. Is it of any relevance to you ? -

Birdsong

If I'm not mistaken those who study birds classify the vocal sounds made by birds in to two main groups -

* Calls (e.g. used to give alarm, to maintain control within a flock, to beg for food etc)

and also -

* Songs ((used to attract mates and to defend territories)

Do I rule out the possibility that birds may actually sing sometimes to God, their Creator, as men themselves sometimes pray or sing ? No - I don't rule that out at all. But would this fit within your 'sequence' if birds sometimes do so ? (I honestly don't know).

Anyway, it seems to be agreed that bird calls (as described above) have a specific purpose, and so do bird songs.

This brings me to bird songs that occur in advance of certain things. What of, for example, the 'dawn chorus' of birds ? It begins BEFORE sunrise, does it not ? And it's remarkable that in areas where many different sorts of birds live in close proximity to one another it has been discovered that there is a definite sequence involved in such 'choruses' - with it normally (but not always) starting with blackbirds, followed by song thrushes, then robins, then wrens, great tits and chaffinches. What determines this ? And what stimulates birds to sing such a chorus in the first place ?

Even more remarkable, a 'dawn chorus' is almost exclusively made up of male birds. (Female birds can sometimes sing with males of the same species, though this appears to be only 'Calls' and not 'Singing'. For example, robins (both male and female) have been known to sing in winter months when they are living temporarily in different territories, but not during the rest of the year when they are in the same territory).

Equally remarkable, a 'dawn chorus' of the sort described above not uncommonly occurs twice. The first 'chorus' is usually a short affair - lasting a few minutes at most and ending almost as suddenly as it begins - this sometimes 25 or 30 minutes before the 'dawn chorus' and of a duration of around 7 or 8 minutes in many cases. Some have suggested that these birds detect something in the sky that precedes the arrival of the first rays of light on the eastern horizon (a reflection perhaps ?) though the actual cause of this short lived prelude is not known.

So, as far as saying that music can precede real events, I think this simple example is clear enough.

Of course it's human music that is the real reason for you asking as you do. But here too I think it clear that certain works of music are so important to music as a whole that their creation/publication seems to have had huge impact on the musical world and even preceded other sorts of developments within human society. A simple example must surely be publication of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues. I suggest that it, this piece of music, can be viewed as anticipating the exploration and mapping of the physical world - a process that certainly began before Bach wrote it, but which was largely done by the 19th century. Am I stretching things too far to suggest that Bach's musical cosmos anticipated global exploration ?

Another point is that prophecies and oracles (though they do not sit easily within the 'sequence' you offer) have definitely featured in the history of mankind in virtually all cultures. This fact cannot reasonably be denied. And that certain musical works have been hugely influential in world affairs (even anticipating them) cannot also easily be denied. If, for example, the opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' preceded the French Revolution (as it clearly did) can we not say that this music, this opera, anticipated in a very real sense that event of human history ?

it may of course be argued that music is simply a reflection of its time - i.e. that it and its creation is a reactionary business. This is surely true to a great extent. But I cannot exclude the possibility that certain works actually anticipate events (of which I've already suggested a few easy examples already).

You would of course like to have a 'sequence' of Music/Prediction/Science. I think your 'sequence' is not wrong. But you might join it up so that Music/Prediction/Science are all parts of a circle. Even better, you might consider that each or all these elements may take tangents so that we do not repeat history but actually move on, progressively, to a paradigm that transcends what has already been. But that new music must arise as a tangent of what has already been seems to me very logical and 'musical'.

I can't agree that all things gravitate towards science or its methods. But I do agree that music is at science at the point where it is written, and at the point where it is performed. (That's because the great issues such as intutition and inspiration must surely transcend any attempt to rationalise the creative process as a whole).

Sorry, but that's the best I can offer at this time.

Regards

Robert

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Thank you for your response and for taking so much of your time over it. However, that said (and meant genuinely), I have to admit that I am disappointed by the text. In fact I am beginning to see at first hand why so many people have been frustrated (here and on the MozartForum) when trying to get answers from you. In a moment I will try to explain why I say that.

First, though, I need to reiterate that some of the things you wrote – and which I took at face value – I found interesting and ‘challenging’. I wondered whether you were offering us a deeper insight into some area of intellectual activity that you had (I assumed) spent time studying and considering. In this spirit I asked you to clarify several of your comments, including the predictive/anticipatory nature of (some) music, an assertion that you posted in this particular thread. I was sincerely and enthusiastically hoping to find that you could elucidate and develop and that (some, at least, of) your detractors could be shown to be wrong (and I’m thinking here of one particular moderator at the MozartForum).

Your response to my straightforward request for elucidation has dampened that enthusiasm. It is becoming clear to me that your style of writing, or exposition if you prefer, is not one that I can relate to. You appear to spray words and sentences at the page and so constructed as to give the appearance of coherent ideas when, upon analysis and cross-referencing, they do not do so. I am sorry to have come to this conclusion Robert; I would have enjoyed engaging in a deeper debate about, for example, music and science.

So, from the general to the particular. Let me comment on your last posting – finally, and before abandoning any further attempt to pursue this thread. (Incidentally, the emphases are mine throughout.)


You write:

You would of course like to have a 'sequence' of Music/Prediction/Science. I think your 'sequence' is not wrong.

No, Robert, none of this was ‘my idea’ or ‘my wish’; all of it emanated from your original statement, namely:

To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science. (Posted 21st May)

All I have done is ask you to develop or justify that assertion and give some examples.

Even in your last posting you write:

'I confirm that it's my view certain musical works do anticipate events'.

Basically the same assertion as before although I note that you have dropped the word science’ and substituted the far vaguer word ‘events’.

You write:

Well Euan, I think I understand why you wish to keep the lid on such a discussion.

Not so: I simply wanted to clarify one point at a time. As I wrote last time:

Can we please limit our discussion – at least at this stage – to point 1 and, even there, to predictions of scientific ‘events’/’discoveries’ etc?

The phrase at least at this stage indicates that I was prepared to discuss the other points you raised but at a later stage.

You then go into a long section on birds and their behaviour. But as you yourself make clear at the end of it:

Of course it's human music that is the real reason for you asking as you do,

the behaviour of birds has nothing to do with the request (for clarification) that I made.

You continue:

But here too I think it clear that certain works of music are so important to music as a whole that their creation/publication seems to have had huge impact on the musical world …

But this is ‘music’ being important to ‘music’ not to ‘science’ which is the subject of our debate. In short, and in the context here, it is irrelevant.

This point concludes with:

… and even preceded other sorts of developments within human society

At this sentence I thought we might be approaching some of the scientific examples I had requested. Indeed, we do appear to be getting a little nearer science when you turn to ‘mapping’:

A simple example must surely be publication of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues. I suggest that it, this piece of music, can be viewed as anticipating the exploration and mapping of the physical world - a process that certainly began before Bach wrote it, but which was largely done by the 19th century. Am I stretching things too far to suggest that Bach's musical cosmos anticipated global exploration ?

But, as you state yourself, mapping preceded Bach, by many centuries in fact. So, to follow the general logic of your original assertion and through the use of this example, surely your assertion should have been:

To me, science has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in music. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated music.

You quickly leave that example and, given the context of the simple request I made, we are once more in completely irrelevant areas – prophecies, oracles, the French Revolution – with no examples of music predicting science in sight.

You continue with what appears to be something of a retraction when, in far more realistic territory, you write:

it may of course be argued that music is simply a reflection of its time - i.e. that it and its creation is a reactionary business. This is surely true to a great extent

This is a much more likely proposition, but you immediately return to your original theme (although, yet again, substituting the word ‘events’ for the key word ‘science’ which is where we started) when you continue:

But I cannot exclude the possibility that certain works [musical works, presumably] actually anticipate events (of which I've already suggested a few easy examples already).

After a brief interlude with circles and tangents – which I must confess I would categorise as mystical waffle – you wrap up with:

I can't agree that all things gravitate towards science or its methods …

I never asked you to ‘agree’ to this (nor do I myself remotely believe it) but, I repeat, it was your assertion about music and science that I questioned from the outset.

I will finish where I started. I am genuinely sorry that what looked a promising and fertile assertion (of yours) has proved to be so arid. As I said much earlier, I am clearly not on your wavelength Robert.

Euan

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Well, there's no harm done. You think we are on a 'different wavelength'. But I (and I say this respectfully) think we may be on a different waveband ! It's greatly to your credit that you persevered. I did not want to 'explain' what (for me) is intuitive, inspirational, creative etc. since these things are as much an integral part of music as are prophecies, mystical utterances, visions, predictions and so on. We are really talking here (or have tried to) of causes and effects. And in the case of music this can become highly complex.

Whether you share the opinions of the Moderator/s of Mozartforum or not on me and my postings I must admit to being happier in my frame of mind than if I had another. I see what I see quite clearly. It only proves our attitude to things is as important to our education as that which we read or claim to understand.

If I might take issue with you on one remark it's where you write -

' After a brief interlude with circles and tangents – which I must confess I would categorise as mystical waffle'.

Yes, it's the mystical part of creative thought, of inspiration, of insight, of intuition etc. that is so easily described as 'waffle'. I was suggesting (or trying to) that it's in precisely these areas where what is known leads to new paradigms, to new ways of understanding that I compared to circles and tangents. I will stay with my 'waffle' and you with your learned studies. I'm sure this will work out much better than if we were to reverse our roles.

Very best regards

Robert

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Thank you for your generous response.

While we obviously have very different views and approaches to the matters you raised, it is encouraging that we can put forward these different, and strongly held, views without animosity. How unlike so many instances in other forums, instances from which you have had far more than your fair share of trouble.

Euan